Young women scientists leave academia in far greater numbers than men for three reasons. During their time as PhD candidates, large numbers of women conclude that (i) the characteristics of academic careers are unappealing, (ii) the impediments they will encounter are disproportionate, and (iii) the sacrifices they will have to make are great.
This is the conclusion of The chemistry PhD: the impact on women's retention, a report for the UK Resource Centre for Women in SET and the Royal Society of Chemistry. In this report, the results of a longitudinal study with PhD students in chemistry in the UK are presented.
Men and women show radically different developments regarding their intended future careers.
At the beginning of their studies, 72% of women express an intention to pursue careers as researchers, either in industry or academia. Among men, 61% express the same intention.
By the third year, the proportion of men planning careers in research had dropped from 61% to 59%. But for the women, the number had plummeted from 72% in the first year to 37% as they finish their studies.
If we tease apart those who want to work as researchers in industry from those who want to work as researchers in academia, the third year numbers are alarming: 12% of the women and 21% of the men see academia as their preferred choice.
This is not the number of PhD students who in fact do go to academia; it's the number who want to. 88% of the women don't even want academic careers, nor do 79% of the men! How can it be this bad? Why are universities such unattractive workplaces?
Part of The chemistry PhD discusses problems that arise while young researchers are PhD candidates, including too little supervision, too much supervision, focus on achieving experimental results rather than mastery of methodologies, and much more. The long-term effects, though, are reflected in the attitudes and beliefs about academia that emerge during this period.
The participants in the study identify many characteristics of academic careers that they find unappealing: the constant hunt for funding for research projects is a significant impediment for both men and women. But women in greater numbers than men see academic careers as all-consuming, solitary and as unnecessarily competitive.
Both men and women PhD candidates come to realise that a string of post-docs is part of a career path, and they see that this can require frequent moves and a lack of security about future employment. Women are more negatively affected than men by the competitiveness in this stage of an academic career and their concerns about competitiveness are fuelled, they say, by a relative lack of self-confidence.
Women more than men see great sacrifice as a prerequisite for success in academia. This comes in part from their perception of women who have succeeded, from the nature of the available role models.
Successful female professors are perceived by female PhD candidates as displaying masculine characteristics, such as aggression and competitiveness, and they were often childless.
As if all this were not enough, women PhD candidates had one experience that men never have. They were told that they would encounter problems along the way simply because they are women. They are told, in other words, that their gender will work against them.
By following PhD candidates throughout their study and asking probing questions, we learn not only that the number of women in chemistry PhD programs who intend to pursue a career in academia falls dramatically, but we learn why.
This research and the new knowledge it produces should be required reading for everyone leading a university or a research group. The stories surely apply far beyond chemistry. Remember that it's not just women who find academia unappealing. Only 21% of the men wanted to head our way, too.
Universities will not survive as research institutions unless university leadership realises that the working conditions they offer dramatically reduce the size of the pool from which they recruit. We will not survive because we have no reason to believe we are attracting the best and the brightest. When industry is the more attractive employer, our credibility as the home of long-term, cutting edge, high-risk, profoundly creative research, is diminished.
The answers here lie in leadership and in changing our current culture to build a new one for new challenges. The job is significant and it will require cutting edge, high-risk leadership teamwork to succeed. Is your university ready?
From: http://www.guardian.co.uk/higher-education-network
October 30, 2012
Found guilty until proven innocent over unapproved research claims
An academic who believes he was suspended from his research after
merely mentioning a controversial incident has said his case has serious
implications for academic freedom. Stuart Macdonald was professor of information and organisation at the University of Sheffield until his retirement last year.
He told Times Higher Education that he was suspended a day after a discussion on research ethics and integrity at a July 2010 awayday for Sheffield's Management School, which was led by two members of the university's research ethics committee.
During the discussion Professor Macdonald mentioned the controversial Eastell-Blumsohn affair. As reported by THE in 2005, Richard Eastell, professor of bone metabolism at Sheffield, was investigated for publishing findings on Procter and Gamble's osteoporosis drug Actonel without having full access to the firm's drug trial data. The concerns were raised by Aubrey Blumsohn, who was then a senior lecturer in Professor Eastell's research unit.
A brief exchange of emails between Professor Macdonald and Colin Williams, director of research in the Management School, suggested the university believed, incorrectly, that Professor Macdonald's remarks implied he was carrying out his own research into the affair without ethical approval. Professor Macdonald was ultimately told in an email: "your research, now discovered, should be suspended", and he complied by halting all of his research activities.
Fifteen days later, he received an email from the chair of the research ethics committee, Richard Jenkins, saying a "misunderstanding" had occurred, although he was offered no apology or further explanation.
After failing to elicit either of these from the university, Professor Macdonald initiated a grievance complaint. He claimed the suspension contravened academic freedom because it punished him for merely mentioning something that was in the public domain.
"It is not possible to function properly as an academic when asking a question may bring arbitrary suspension, and when the knowing of something is prima facie evidence of unapproved research," he said.
He also claimed that the action contravened the university's procedures, which require oral and written warnings prior to a suspension.
His grievance complaint - which was brought before he was forced to retire after reaching retirement age - was dismissed.
"The more pressure I have applied, the more intransigent the university has become," Professor Macdonald said. "It struck me that my complaint was so clear that the university must eventually see sense, and I had no wish to cause it any embarrassment."
In a statement, the university insisted that Professor Macdonald was never "suspended from carrying out research", but was, instead, "asked to suspend any research he was carrying out that did not have prior ethics approval in line with the university's internal procedures".
"The university was able to quickly satisfy itself that Professor Macdonald was not carrying out any research that did not have prior ethics approval and as far as it was concerned the matter was swiftly resolved. The university has been satisfied throughout that its research ethics policy has always been used appropriately and the university acted within its procedures at all times," the statement said.
But Professor Macdonald responded: "All I knew at the time was that I was suspended from research. There was no explanation of why, or of what this meant. And despite my very best endeavours over two years, there has been no explanation since."
From: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk
He told Times Higher Education that he was suspended a day after a discussion on research ethics and integrity at a July 2010 awayday for Sheffield's Management School, which was led by two members of the university's research ethics committee.
During the discussion Professor Macdonald mentioned the controversial Eastell-Blumsohn affair. As reported by THE in 2005, Richard Eastell, professor of bone metabolism at Sheffield, was investigated for publishing findings on Procter and Gamble's osteoporosis drug Actonel without having full access to the firm's drug trial data. The concerns were raised by Aubrey Blumsohn, who was then a senior lecturer in Professor Eastell's research unit.
A brief exchange of emails between Professor Macdonald and Colin Williams, director of research in the Management School, suggested the university believed, incorrectly, that Professor Macdonald's remarks implied he was carrying out his own research into the affair without ethical approval. Professor Macdonald was ultimately told in an email: "your research, now discovered, should be suspended", and he complied by halting all of his research activities.
Fifteen days later, he received an email from the chair of the research ethics committee, Richard Jenkins, saying a "misunderstanding" had occurred, although he was offered no apology or further explanation.
After failing to elicit either of these from the university, Professor Macdonald initiated a grievance complaint. He claimed the suspension contravened academic freedom because it punished him for merely mentioning something that was in the public domain.
"It is not possible to function properly as an academic when asking a question may bring arbitrary suspension, and when the knowing of something is prima facie evidence of unapproved research," he said.
He also claimed that the action contravened the university's procedures, which require oral and written warnings prior to a suspension.
His grievance complaint - which was brought before he was forced to retire after reaching retirement age - was dismissed.
"The more pressure I have applied, the more intransigent the university has become," Professor Macdonald said. "It struck me that my complaint was so clear that the university must eventually see sense, and I had no wish to cause it any embarrassment."
In a statement, the university insisted that Professor Macdonald was never "suspended from carrying out research", but was, instead, "asked to suspend any research he was carrying out that did not have prior ethics approval in line with the university's internal procedures".
"The university was able to quickly satisfy itself that Professor Macdonald was not carrying out any research that did not have prior ethics approval and as far as it was concerned the matter was swiftly resolved. The university has been satisfied throughout that its research ethics policy has always been used appropriately and the university acted within its procedures at all times," the statement said.
But Professor Macdonald responded: "All I knew at the time was that I was suspended from research. There was no explanation of why, or of what this meant. And despite my very best endeavours over two years, there has been no explanation since."
From: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk
October 18, 2012
Suspension of Ian Parker from MMU update (October 16, 2012)
The first investigation meeting took place on 15 October, with Ian Parker, MMU academic and Human Resources personnel and University and College Union (UCU) representatives attending.
To clarify, to protect Ian Parker against unwarranted accusations and further damage to his reputation arising from rumours about what led to his suspension (and to address the claim by MMU that press reporting of the story has been ‘wholly inaccurate’), the precise charges are that Ian sent an email intended to undermine the credibility of a Head of Department and that sending this email constituted a failure to comply with a reasonable management instruction (the email was only sent internally, and Ian denies the charges).
The suspension and disciplinary process against Ian is clearly quite disproportionate to what he is alleged to have done, and we hope that MMU will now allow him to return to work. A decision on whether to end the suspension and facilitate a discussion about procedures in the department or whether to continue with this action, which is already taking its toll on undergraduate teaching and PhD supervision, is expected later in the week. We urge MMU to review its decision and acknowledge that its action so far have damaged its reputation nationally and internationally.
------------------
Please sign this petition http://www.change.org/
------------------
From: http://www.asylumonline.net/ian-parkers-suspension-from-manchester-metropolitan-university/#links
To clarify, to protect Ian Parker against unwarranted accusations and further damage to his reputation arising from rumours about what led to his suspension (and to address the claim by MMU that press reporting of the story has been ‘wholly inaccurate’), the precise charges are that Ian sent an email intended to undermine the credibility of a Head of Department and that sending this email constituted a failure to comply with a reasonable management instruction (the email was only sent internally, and Ian denies the charges).
The suspension and disciplinary process against Ian is clearly quite disproportionate to what he is alleged to have done, and we hope that MMU will now allow him to return to work. A decision on whether to end the suspension and facilitate a discussion about procedures in the department or whether to continue with this action, which is already taking its toll on undergraduate teaching and PhD supervision, is expected later in the week. We urge MMU to review its decision and acknowledge that its action so far have damaged its reputation nationally and internationally.
------------------
Please sign this petition http://www.change.org/
------------------
From: http://www.asylumonline.net/ian-parkers-suspension-from-manchester-metropolitan-university/#links
October 14, 2012
It is back: Divestors of People Award - Awarded to Manchester Metropolitan University
Due to what happened to Dr D'Silva and what happened more recently with the suspension of Ian Parker, we decided to bring back the 'Divestors of People Award', and award it to Manchester Metropolitan University which seems to have a significant track record in meeting the criteria below.The Criteria
1. Lack of strategy to improve the under-performance of the institution. This does not exist, is not clearly defined, or is not communicated to staff.
2. There is lack of coherent investment in staff development.
3. Whatever strategies exist to manage staff, these are implemented to promote cronyism, incompetence, favoritism, or inequality, and to disguise management failures.
4. Managers received little or no training to improve their communication, behaviour and people skills.
5. Managers are ineffective in leading, managing, and developing staff. High levels of over-management or under-management.
6. Staff are not encouraged to take ownership and responsibility through involvement in decision-making. There is no accountability and transparency in the decision making process.
7. Staff are demoralised, de-skilled or demoted. The working environment is toxic.
8. Lack of improvements in managing people is chronic.
9. The working environment shows high levels of work-related stress.
10. Internal grievance procedures are used selectively by managers to eliminate staff. Some managers are untouchable despite their failures, while victims (targets) are not given fair hearings.
11. Staff report high levels of bullying and harassment by managers. Fear prevails among the silent majority.
12. The governing body is detached from the staff and is in the same bed with the management. Governors show no visible interest in the affairs of the staff. They fail to address management abuse.
Institutions qualify for the ‘Divestors of People’© award if they meet at least 50% of the above criteria and this can be verified by at least two different staff members from the same organisation. Nominators can remain anonymous.
Conditions for a university or college to be removed from the Hall of Shame
* Public admission of wrongdoing.
* Public promise to correct wrongdoings by changes in personnel (including getting rid of the bullies and reinstating the targets).
* Public apologies to all targets.
* Payment of compensation to targets of bullies, especially providing guaranteed private medical
coverage for life to all targets affected.
* Setting up a scholarship/bursary fund aimed at deserving undergrad/postgrad students who have shown courage in standing up to larger forces in the name of justice.
* Public recognition of staff who stood up against the bullies and supported the target.
* Removal of Management and Governors who failed to act.
October 07, 2012
Suspention of Ian Parker – international protest!
Ian was suspended from work after having been unable to arrange, with barely 18 hours notice, for a union official to come with him to hear a charge that the university said amounted to ‘gross professional misconduct’. What this seems to mean is that Ian raised concerns within the University about the problem of secrecy and control in the department in which he works, and was suspended for doing so. Ian has had to leave his office and key, been told not to contact University staff and students, and his access to his email has been suspended.
For his students Ian has simply ‘disappeared’ overnight, and while he is keen to continue supervising and teaching, he is not allowed to. I could never fully express what effect Ian’s sudden, shocking and completely unjustified suspension might mean for students at MMU and for the wider international academic community. Ian’s suspension is happening against a wider backdrop in the UK where while universities are now charging students £9000 a year (and much more for international students), they are also cutting essential resources, often meaning staff have to work harder and complain less. This means that those staff who defend University as a space for open and democratic deliberation are often put under pressure to remain silent.
In fact another member of staff at MMU (and another member of the University and College Union- the UCU), Christine Vié, is also being victimised, and has been made compulsorily redundant (and there is an ongoing campaign to defend her).
We are in shock, but only if we speak openly together will we be in a position to challenge and change what is happening to all of us. Openness and democratic debate are the hallmarks of good education. Yet secrecy and silencing are key issues here. Ian has been silenced but his work continues to speak.Yesterday I looked at the principle aims of ‘Psychology, Politics, Resistance’, which Ian helped to set up in 1994 as a network of people who were prepared to oppose the abusive uses and oppressive consequences of psychology, to support individuals to challenge exploitation, to develop a collective active opposition to oppression, and to make this a key element in the education of all psychologists.
So, let’s act together, and follow Ian’s example, and speak out – tell as many people as we can, and come together collectively as an international critical community to call upon the management of MMU to come to a resolution of this problem and to reinstate Ian. Messages of protest can be sent to the Vice-Chancellor John Brooks (j.brooks) and the Head of the Department of Psychology Christine Horrocks (c.horrocks). These messages can be copied as messages of solidarity to the MMU UCU chair Pura Ariza (p.ariza) and it is imperative that, at the same time, support should be stepped up to support Christine Vié (c.vie).
The postgraduate students at MMU are sending a letter to the Vice Chancellor, and there will be flyers and posters put up on campus, and call outs in lectures all next week. Please do send letters and emails, and tell as many people as you can. We will keep you posted about further action, and do let us know if you have any ideas for how we can fight this together (because we can fight this together). Please feel free to email me china.t.mills.
In solidarity, China Mills (alongside many of the students at MMU)
From: http://criticalpsygreece.org/2012/10/06/suspention-of-ian-parker-international-protest/
Messages of protest can be sent to the Vice-Chancellor John Brooks (j.brooks@mmu.ac.uk) and the Head of the Department of Psychology Christine Horrocks (c.horrocks@mmu.ac.uk). These messages can be copied as messages of solidarity to the MMU UCU chair Pura Ariza (p.ariza@mmu.ac.uk) and it is imperative that, at the same time, support should be stepped up to support Christine Vié (c.vie@mmu.ac.uk).
-----------------------
Wednesday 10 October 2012
Times Higher Education covered the above story online, but does not allow for comments...
And then they did allow for comments... Why the change of mind?
September 27, 2012
Head suspended after theology school protest
The head of a theology school at a Catholic university college has been suspended after he criticised plans to close his department.
Anthony Towey, head of the School of Theology, Philosophy and History at St Mary's University College, Twickenham, was suspended last week "pending investigations into a very serious disciplinary matter", the college has confirmed.
The action follows protests over plans to merge Dr Towey's department with the School of Communication, Culture and Creative Arts. Academics at St Mary's, which hopes to become Britain's first Catholic university by 2013, fear the lack of a dedicated theology department may harm teaching and research as well as undermine the college's commitment to its Catholic mission.
Students told Times Higher Education that Dr Towey was interrupted while giving a Christology lecture on 17 September and escorted off the premises of the institution by a member of security. His suspension comes after he sent an email to staff and students informing them about the proposed merger, saying he was "completely in the dark" about how it might affect students.
The email, seen by THE, criticises the "sudden decision" to merge the schools which he says "runs contrary to St Mary's procedures". Dr Towey also mentions the "overwhelming and reasoned opposition to the proposal across some 60 academic and administrative staff" members and suggests students could complain to their union or the college's chair of governors. "It is a tremendous sadness that this sense of community is being dismantled," he adds.
Dr Towey has distributed a document making detailed criticisms of the merger plans, which were put forward by the college's principal Philip Esler, a Bible scholar and former chief executive of the Arts and Humanities Research Council. Lance Pettitt, head of the School of Communication, Culture and Creative Arts, has also said "the proposal to merge is ill-conceived, poorly researched and presents no coherent business case" in a draft response to the proposals.
However, St Mary's believes the merger will not only save money but will improve interdisciplinary research in religious studies. A spokesman added that Dr Towey had been suspended following "a grave breach of his professional duties" and that his teaching programmes would be fully covered.
From: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=421270
The action follows protests over plans to merge Dr Towey's department with the School of Communication, Culture and Creative Arts. Academics at St Mary's, which hopes to become Britain's first Catholic university by 2013, fear the lack of a dedicated theology department may harm teaching and research as well as undermine the college's commitment to its Catholic mission.
Students told Times Higher Education that Dr Towey was interrupted while giving a Christology lecture on 17 September and escorted off the premises of the institution by a member of security. His suspension comes after he sent an email to staff and students informing them about the proposed merger, saying he was "completely in the dark" about how it might affect students.
The email, seen by THE, criticises the "sudden decision" to merge the schools which he says "runs contrary to St Mary's procedures". Dr Towey also mentions the "overwhelming and reasoned opposition to the proposal across some 60 academic and administrative staff" members and suggests students could complain to their union or the college's chair of governors. "It is a tremendous sadness that this sense of community is being dismantled," he adds.
Dr Towey has distributed a document making detailed criticisms of the merger plans, which were put forward by the college's principal Philip Esler, a Bible scholar and former chief executive of the Arts and Humanities Research Council. Lance Pettitt, head of the School of Communication, Culture and Creative Arts, has also said "the proposal to merge is ill-conceived, poorly researched and presents no coherent business case" in a draft response to the proposals.
However, St Mary's believes the merger will not only save money but will improve interdisciplinary research in religious studies. A spokesman added that Dr Towey had been suspended following "a grave breach of his professional duties" and that his teaching programmes would be fully covered.
From: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=421270
August 23, 2012
We were in the wrong place at the wrong time...
I and my friends were
bullied at
Southampton University. We had no intention on competing with
these academics,
these bullies, but their actions have affected the rest of our
lives.
Angela
had a nervous breakdown and never completely recovered. She can work but she’s
wary of academics.
When she’s asked for a transcript since she intended to apply
to graduate
school in US the university provided one that listed courses
that she never
took!
Theresa was told by her MA supervisor that he’d given
her thesis another
academic since 'he needed to increase the number of
publications' since her
thesis was ‘good’. She removed her MA from her CV, never again
worked in that
sub-field, and did a PhD at her undergraduate institution.
Lucy can only work
as a temp since the University refuses to give her a
transcript from her either
undergraduate or graduate degree so that she can apply for
graduate school in
the US, where she now lives, on the grounds that universities
in the UK do not
provide American style transcripts. This statement is untrue
since two British
universities have readily supplied American style transcripts
to Theresa and I.
Lucy was sent a letter about her MA but both the name of the
MA and the courses
listed were different to the ones she’d taken. She objected to
these
differences and she was told that the letter had to suffice.
Lucy cannot apply
to graduate school to retrain with a letter since the
University she applied to
in the US requires a transcript.
Bill left his funded PhD
place in his department
after being falsely accused of many things because he thought
that it was
pointless being paid to be bullied.
The link below describes
my experience:
http://www.mikaelstrandberg.com/2010/11/26/guest-writer-29-alicia-colson/
We were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Dr. Alicia Colson
August 22, 2012
The bullies of academia and suicide
About 20 bullying victims at one of
Australia's leading universities have attempted or considered suicide,
an inquiry has been told.
One female academic became so traumatised she tried to kill herself in her campus office, she told the federal parliamentary committee into workplace bullying.
Microbiologist Dr Michelle Adams later told The Daily Telegraph she swallowed "tablets" in February last year during a long-running campaign to stop bullying at Newcastle University.
"I am now medically retired and ... under the medical care of both a psychiatrist and a psychologist," the 46-year-old mother of two said.
Dr Adams told the inquiry she suffered "almost 10 years of bullying, harassment and victimisation" after reporting academic misconduct in 2003.
"When one act of bullying involved the theft of ... tuberculosis from my research laboratory, at least one colleague was of the opinion that 'things go missing all the time',"she said.
"When I explained I was scared the attacks would escalate to violence I was told I was 'over-reacting'."
In a letter to NSW and federal MPs, Dr Adams said an anti-bullying group at the university had collected "evidence about 20 victims of the bullying have either attempted or considered suicide".
The issues at Newcastle follow revelations during the inquiry that staff relations at the University of NSW had become so dysfunctional some employees spend days "crying in the toilets".
More than two thirds of the academic and general staff at UNSW say they had been bullied at work and some claim to have been sexually assaulted. University authorities have been accused of failing to address the issue.
The anti-bullying group at Newcastle told the inquiry 175 current and former staff and students had responded to an online survey.
In March this year Dr Adams was awarded more than $60,000 by the Workers Compensation Commission.
The University of Newcastle last night said it had "worked with Dr Adams for a number of years ... to determine the factual basis for her allegations and concerns" but had not been able to put her mind at rest on any issue she raised.
New Vice-Chancellor Professor Caroline McMillen said the university was committed to a workplace free from bullying: "Our staff embrace the code of conduct and I have found they are deeply committed to equity and excellence."
From: http://www.news.com.au/national/the-bullies-of-academia-and-suicide/story-fndo4bst-1226436161459
One female academic became so traumatised she tried to kill herself in her campus office, she told the federal parliamentary committee into workplace bullying.
Microbiologist Dr Michelle Adams later told The Daily Telegraph she swallowed "tablets" in February last year during a long-running campaign to stop bullying at Newcastle University.
"I am now medically retired and ... under the medical care of both a psychiatrist and a psychologist," the 46-year-old mother of two said.
Dr Adams told the inquiry she suffered "almost 10 years of bullying, harassment and victimisation" after reporting academic misconduct in 2003.
"When one act of bullying involved the theft of ... tuberculosis from my research laboratory, at least one colleague was of the opinion that 'things go missing all the time',"she said.
In a letter to NSW and federal MPs, Dr Adams said an anti-bullying group at the university had collected "evidence about 20 victims of the bullying have either attempted or considered suicide".
The issues at Newcastle follow revelations during the inquiry that staff relations at the University of NSW had become so dysfunctional some employees spend days "crying in the toilets".
More than two thirds of the academic and general staff at UNSW say they had been bullied at work and some claim to have been sexually assaulted. University authorities have been accused of failing to address the issue.
The anti-bullying group at Newcastle told the inquiry 175 current and former staff and students had responded to an online survey.
In March this year Dr Adams was awarded more than $60,000 by the Workers Compensation Commission.
The University of Newcastle last night said it had "worked with Dr Adams for a number of years ... to determine the factual basis for her allegations and concerns" but had not been able to put her mind at rest on any issue she raised.
New Vice-Chancellor Professor Caroline McMillen said the university was committed to a workplace free from bullying: "Our staff embrace the code of conduct and I have found they are deeply committed to equity and excellence."
From: http://www.news.com.au/national/the-bullies-of-academia-and-suicide/story-fndo4bst-1226436161459
August 12, 2012
Workplace bullying at the University of... Inquiry into workplace bullying, House of Representatives Committees, Australia
Under the Terms of Reference for this Inquiry:
The prevalence of workplace bullying and the experience of victims; and role of workplace cultures in preventing and responding to bullying I wish to draw to your attention:
• the entrenched systematic culture of bullying at the University
• the lack of support from the University following my initial allegation of bullying; and more importantly
• the enforced punitive punishment regime I experienced following my submission of a formal grievance that attempted to expose bullying within the workplace.
Brief summary of submission:
I experienced 5 years of bullying within my discipline (2000-2005):
• Constant changing of my work tasks (courses deleted without consultation that resulted in the development of new courses outside of my specialization);
• Constant public humiliation (belittling of my expertise/ideas at staff meetings); • Excessive teaching workload resulting in 75hr plus working week that prevented me from engaging fully with my research commitments;
• Withholding of financial resources allocated to cross-faculty courses that I was responsible for;
• Overt ostracisation following my support for two post-graduate student whistleblowers that were treated badly by senior staff Lack of support and punitive punishment following my formal allegation of bullying (2005-2008)
• Refusal of the University to allow me to return to my academic duties following sick leave for major depression in early 2005 which I claimed had resulted from bullying
• The University’s refusal to accept medical certificates from my GP, my personal psychiatrist reports and the University funded psychiatrist’s reports stating my medical fitness to re-engage with my academic duties
• Placed under restrictive workplace conditions following my objection to the removal of a ‘stop workplace bullying’ poster from my office door
• Stigmatisation of my mental health injury that I had experienced in early 2005 through an University management enforced three year punishment regime of social, professional and physical isolation on campus; and
• The development of a discriminatory survey by Human Resources to justify their draconian and punitive punishment and subsequent forced early retirement.
Dear Honourable MPs,
First, I must state that in July 2008 under considerable duress I signed a confidentiality agreement (aligned with a ‘voluntary’ redundancy) stating that I would not discuss my employment with a third person or take legal action against the University. However, I will always regret being complicit in a cover up of malicious workplace behaviour at the University.
Unfortunately, I personally know of too many instances where the complainant and/or whistleblower has been destroyed by a culture that promotes and condones workplace bullying. That the University places higher credibility to traits of malevolence, malice, cowardice and self-protection rather than uphold values of excellence and integrity is shameful and should be exposed...
More at: http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_representatives_committees?url=ee/bullying/subs.htm - Submission Number 8
The prevalence of workplace bullying and the experience of victims; and role of workplace cultures in preventing and responding to bullying I wish to draw to your attention:
• the entrenched systematic culture of bullying at the University
• the lack of support from the University following my initial allegation of bullying; and more importantly
• the enforced punitive punishment regime I experienced following my submission of a formal grievance that attempted to expose bullying within the workplace.
Brief summary of submission:
I experienced 5 years of bullying within my discipline (2000-2005):
• Constant changing of my work tasks (courses deleted without consultation that resulted in the development of new courses outside of my specialization);
• Constant public humiliation (belittling of my expertise/ideas at staff meetings); • Excessive teaching workload resulting in 75hr plus working week that prevented me from engaging fully with my research commitments;
• Withholding of financial resources allocated to cross-faculty courses that I was responsible for;
• Overt ostracisation following my support for two post-graduate student whistleblowers that were treated badly by senior staff Lack of support and punitive punishment following my formal allegation of bullying (2005-2008)
• Refusal of the University to allow me to return to my academic duties following sick leave for major depression in early 2005 which I claimed had resulted from bullying
• The University’s refusal to accept medical certificates from my GP, my personal psychiatrist reports and the University funded psychiatrist’s reports stating my medical fitness to re-engage with my academic duties
• Placed under restrictive workplace conditions following my objection to the removal of a ‘stop workplace bullying’ poster from my office door
• Stigmatisation of my mental health injury that I had experienced in early 2005 through an University management enforced three year punishment regime of social, professional and physical isolation on campus; and
• The development of a discriminatory survey by Human Resources to justify their draconian and punitive punishment and subsequent forced early retirement.
Dear Honourable MPs,
First, I must state that in July 2008 under considerable duress I signed a confidentiality agreement (aligned with a ‘voluntary’ redundancy) stating that I would not discuss my employment with a third person or take legal action against the University. However, I will always regret being complicit in a cover up of malicious workplace behaviour at the University.
Unfortunately, I personally know of too many instances where the complainant and/or whistleblower has been destroyed by a culture that promotes and condones workplace bullying. That the University places higher credibility to traits of malevolence, malice, cowardice and self-protection rather than uphold values of excellence and integrity is shameful and should be exposed...
More at: http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_representatives_committees?url=ee/bullying/subs.htm - Submission Number 8
July 23, 2012
Australian Inquiry into workplace bullying - We need one in the UK too!
"The Committee encourages submissions to its inquiry from a wide range
of individuals and organisations... More submissions will be added to the list when they are received and authorised for publication..."
Read some of the submissions, including one from the National Tertiary Education Union:
http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_representatives_committees?url=ee/bullying/subs.htm
Time to have a similar inquiry into workplace bullying in the UK.
Read some of the submissions, including one from the National Tertiary Education Union:
http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_representatives_committees?url=ee/bullying/subs.htm
Time to have a similar inquiry into workplace bullying in the UK.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)